The invention relates primarily to psychological testing, and more particularly to (a) the manner in which various physical and psychological characteristics of people influence the way they use physical space in personal behavior and interpersonal interaction, and (b) the testing of various psychological and social-psychological theories by observation, by qualified personnel, of people engaged in structured activities or interpersonal interaction within the device.
Much of the prior research on how people use physical space in interpersonal interaction has been summarized by Irwin Altman and Anne Vinsel in a chapter titled "Personal Space--An Analysis of E. T. Hall's Proxemics Framework" in Human Behavior and Environment, eds. I. Altman and J. Wohlwill, Vol. 2, New York: Plenum, 1977. In this article factors that have been shown to influence interpersonal distancing and the use of personal space are divided into three categories--individual, interpersonal, and situational factors. Individual characteristics that emerge as significant in the existing research are summarized as follows.
In summary, research on individual characteristics and personal space suggests a framework based on the power, confidence, and control properties of the subject and the other participant. Low power in the subject is associated with increased distance from others, while confidence or power is associated with a willingness to be physically closer to others. Also, larger distances are maintained from a more threatening target person with whom one is interacting. These data correlate nicely with attraction and intrusion studies. That is, a positively valued person is approached more closely than a negatively valued person in the case of attraction studies, and a stranger who comes overly close is presumably threatening and is avoided, as shown in intrusion studies. (Altman and Vinsel, 1977, p. 229).
The significant interpersonal factors are similarly summarized in the following excerpt.
The samples suggests the importance of two major types of variables: similarity and acquaintance/attraction. First, people use closer distances when interacting with others who are similar rather than dissimilar in age, sex, status, etc. Second, and most frequently researched, people use less space when interacting with people whom they like, with whom they have had positive experiences, or with whom they are better acquainted, such as friends versus acquaintances versus strangers. Furthermore, the liking effect works both ways. That is, people sit or stand closer to those whom they like, and they are attracted to those close to whom they are forced to sit or stand. (Altman and Winsel, 1977, p. 213).
Effects of situational factors are not yet well defined, however, assuming that the most salient feature of the setting created by this instrument is its unfamiliarity, one may speculate that it will tend to evoke behavior reflecting generalized expectancies about the objects or people within it. Generalized expectancies have been discussed by Julian Rotter in an article titled "Some Problems and Misconceptions Related to the Construct of Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement" in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Volume 43, pp. 56-67, 1975 as follows.
Expectancies in each situation are determined not only by specific experiences in that situation but also, to some varying extent, by experiences in other situations that the individual perceives as similar. One of the determinants of the relative importance of generalized expectancies versus specific expectancies developed in the same situation is the amount of experience in the particular specific situation. These relationships are expressed in the formula below . . . ##EQU1## In this formula s.sub.1 represents the specific situation and N represents the amount of previous experience the individual has had in that situation. E represents expectancy; E' represents a specific expectancy; and GE represents generalized expectancy. Clearly, if the formula is correct, and there is considerable empirical evidence to support it, then the relative importance of generalized expectancy goes up as the situation is more novel or ambiguous and goes down as the individual's experience in that situation increases. (Rotter, 1975, p. 57).
This would suggest that the situational characteristics of the instrument would tend to draw out, and perhaps amplify, generalized expectancies because of its novel and ambiguous nature. Since such expectancies seem, at the limit of generality, to merge into what are more commonly called personality characteristics, it could be argued that the instrument will accentuate the effects of individual differences in personality and person-perception on spatial behavior.